MADD campaingning to erradicate drunk driving entirely

[EarthwormJim]

People raise the point of how these devices would not be an inconvenience for sober drivers. Well how about the inconvenience of paying for the device?

The money has to come from somewhere, i.e. the consumers in one form or another.

Also, sensors fail. It's just the nature of technology. I do not like the idea of having another thing to maintain on my car, or have it fail on me at an inopportune moment.

About the gloves issue, I really doubt the people saying to just quickly slip off your gloves have ever been in below freezing conditions.

 

[oldman420]

It does not matter anyway as some techie will create a way to hack around it so that you can just override the system. It is a silly idea that only MADD could come up with, I could see placing one into a person?s car that has been convicted of driving drunk but otherwise it is a clear invasion into my rights imo.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: oldman420
It does not matter anyway as some techie will create a way to hack around it so that you can just override the system. It is a silly idea that only MADD could come up with, I could see placing one into a person?s car that has been convicted of driving drunk but otherwise it is a clear invasion into my rights imo.

I can see MADD still selling it for profit and it becoming an useless item on our tax dollars.

Still I feel sorry for anyone killed by a drunk driver.

 

[topslop1]

Sorry but won't fly at all for mass production.

 

[Ilikepiedoyou]

I personally beleive that all those who drink are pieces of garbage to varying degrees. Gosh I hate alcohol drinking pieces of ******!! (A close friend of mine burned to death unconsious in his car after being hit by a drunk driver, almost a decade ago)

But I will limit that prejudice in answering this. I doubt this will ever fly because of so many ofthe issues discussed above. If it does, those convicted of drunk driving in the past should pay for all of this. But I also beleive that an ex post facto law is unconstitutional, so that can't happen. Why not just create harsher punishments. If someone is convicted of drunk driving, they lose their lisence, for a decade. I can gauarentee that will make a good impact.

Unfortuatly things today are in a down turn when it comes to this issue. A fellow student likes to brag about his drunk driving. He does it frequently. He has gotten pulled over for it, but the fact is that most cops hate writting tickets for DUIs. It is usually 3 hours of paper work for them, so I have been told by an officer. So there evening of traffic patrol is over, and they have to sit in the station writing make the write up, not fun. There is a lot more that can be done to help curb drunk drivers.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
those were just two government standards that I threw out there. You know their are others that have to do with the general safety of everyone on the road. Everything from Tire tread specifications to those chips that limit the speed of a car.

Actually, the speed limiting chips are only there to prevent the car from exceeding the speed rating of the OE tires. It's a money-saving thing on the part of the car manufacturer (and a lawsuit prevention method because people have tried to sue after they exceeded the tire speed rating and had a blowout). They're not on the car to protect other drivers.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

driving is not a right its a privilege........ next.........

Yes, but to impose this brethalizer on people who HAVE NEVER HAD A DUI is imposing a restriction without probable cause.

For example, police need a warrant before searching a home or a car. The warrant insures that they are not simply searching everyone and thereby infringing upon people's right to privacy. Your "solution" of making everyone take a breathalizer before driving infringes upon people's right to privacy and turns the "innocent until prooven guilty" dictum on its head. There is NO excuse for treating an innocent man in the same manner as a guilty man. NONE. And there NEVER will be.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Well we make everyone get car insurance in most states don't we? Thats not to protect you its to protect the other guy same principle here.

I can operate my vehicle in a 100% legal manner and still be involved in an accident, which would necessitate insurance. There is no need to assume guilt on the part of the driver to make the case for insurance.

Try again.

ZV

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Yes, but to impose this brethalizer on people who HAVE NEVER HAD A DUI is imposing a restriction without probable cause.

That's exactly why they won't put it in everyone's car, or at the very least, if they do, it won't be activated until you get a DUI/DWI.

Making everyone test before starting the car would be more effective, but that's pulling an eight-guage on a pheasant. Besides, we're too uptight about anything big-brother-esque. That said, I wouldn't want my car to have an activated one either, simply because nobody, and I mean nobody drives my car but me, and I don't drink.

 

[qdemn7]

Well I feared this would eventually happen. Once again the Neo-Prohibitonist Fascists are on the march and you can hear their jackboots hitting the pavement. For any of you to young to remember, a similar stupidity was tried back in the 70s with seat belts. In order to force people to wear seat belts car had an ignition interlock installed that would prevent the car from starting unless the belt or belts were buckled.

All of this falls under the stupid ignorant mindset of "if it saves one life, it's worth it." As far as I'm concerned that mindset is 100% pure unadulterated Bull****...... Whether referring to this, Gun Control or any similar "Safety Fascism".

I think if you read the article, you'll see that they reached the bottom, and the hard-core drinkers are the only ones left. Maybe throw THEM in the slammer permanently instead of infringing on the rights of the law abiding. What's gong to be considered "Drunk" .06? .04? .02? .01? How low will these things be set? And what happens when they malfunction, and you know they will? What then? Are you stuck in the middle of nowhere with a car that won't start because of some bullshit device? You want to talk "potential" saving lives? What is some criminal is chasing you and your only hope to escape is your car, but OOPS, it won't start because of the anti-drunk driving interlock. What then?

We live in a world with many potential risks. We cannot cover everything in foam and "force" everyone to play nice. People need to remember that in the United States of America we enjoy the freedom to pretty much do as we wish, as long as our actions do not negatively impact others. Remember...that means that the PRICE OF OUR FREEDOM is having to live with the chance that someone MAY hurt us. However knowing that if they do that they will be punished by a jury of their peers. This all hinges on the point that we are NOT supposed to be regulated into not being able to hurt others...we are supposed to make those decisions ourselves and pay the consequences if we screw up. By legislating "safety" into all aspects of our lives, whether by forcing total public smoking bans or by forcing people to have "drunk" driving sensors in their cars, you are in effect removing some of the liberty our nation has promised us from birth. We were NEVER supposed to be a "safe" society, merely a "just" one, in which those who screw up are punished...no more and no less.


This reminds of the line from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" "Doin good ain't got no end."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
And I suppose you'll pay for it all?

well yes if i buy a new car I'd assume it would be built into the cost of a car just like anti lock brakes and side impact airbags

Apples vs oranges?

those are usually optional, and you pay for them to possibly save your life.

VS

mandatory and you arent paying to save your life, because the drunken asshole has to be the one who has it in his car for it to matter.

 

[WackyDan]

I've breezed through the thread here and just want to add a thought. Sorry of it was already brought up and I missed it.

Before you (anyone) suggests that a sensor to detect sobriety before allowing engine start/vehicle operation is a good idea, I suggest they look at something else....

Many European nations have such severe penalties on DUI that they also have the lowest rates per capita of DUI. Germany would be a good example. Our system in the US is based not on personal responsibility for one's actions, but on repetitive second chances.

A DUI here in the US for a first or even 2nd time offender is relatively easy to get out of, and maintain your license. Costly, certainly but who cares about money when you are trying to maintain your license/job? In some countries a first offense, is your last. You will go to jail mandatory, and you may lose your license for life.

Rule of thumb..... Treat driving as a privilege, and mandate strict penalties for DUI with no leniency on sentencing, and you will impact the rate of DUI and DUI related deaths in the US.

I'm not saying that zero tolerance is the answer by itself - we all make mistakes and deserve 2nd chances..... but 3rd's and 4th's?

However, the mob mentality of enforcing behavior on others or inflicting cost onto others for the actions and lack of personal responsibility of the few, is in my opinion the wrong solution.

We have rules/laws that are useless without harsh punishment. We are too scared in the US to take such bold steps though, so welcome again to the status quo.

 

[Turin39789]

Woohoo! New part time tax free job for me. $5 and I'll start your car. Just need to spend time in an area where several bars are close together to make sure I stay busy.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Worst idea ever. Luxury vehicles with IR keys are bad enough. Personally I hate automatic windows and IR/other non-standard ignition. Friend of mine had a really nice mercedez that opened and started via an IR key. Guess what happened in the middle of the winter? The car failed to recognize the IR key and she was stranded. I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced to put a breathalizer on my car just to have it fail too. All the people arguing for this are retarded. It's a (potentially huge) inconvenience, plus it would cost WAY too much money to ever implement on a national scale. Even if it got passed, I'm sure there'd be people out there modding their cars to get around it.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
I personally beleive that all those who drink are pieces of garbage to varying degrees. Gosh I hate alcohol drinking pieces of ******!!

:roll:

I personally "beleive" that you should DIAF.

- M4H

 

[Tom]

My sister-in-law's sister lost the use of the right side of her body, leg, arm, everything, just last month, thanks to a drunk driver. As an example of what her life is now like, she has to have assistance to get into and out of the bathroom.

I don't drink; would I be willing to put up with the aggravation of a device that tested my alcohol level to start my car, so that some person somewhere wouldn't suffer the same fate ? Yes, I think I would.

 

[glugglug]

Apparently they never saw the Mad TV where the father brings his kid to the bars so the kid can blow the car whistle for him.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: B00ne
Actually, fatalities are quite high in the US in general partly because of the speed limits

Fixed.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Journer
didnt read any posts.. i dont think it will help much...all one would have to do is get someone else to blow into it...and there are ALWAYS ways around it...and it wouldnt be hard either...

..you'r going to blow someone else's??:Q

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Tom
My sister-in-law's sister lost the use of the right side of her body, leg, arm, everything, just last month, thanks to a drunk driver. As an example of what her life is now like, she has to have assistance to get into and out of the bathroom.

I don't drink; would I be willing to put up with the aggravation of a device that tested my alcohol level to start my car, so that some person somewhere wouldn't suffer the same fate ? Yes, I think I would.

The question isn't what you are willing to. The question is are you willing to force innocent people to do this?

I feel for the pain your relative suffered, but that is not a good reason to arbitrarily search everyone.

 

[integramodder]

First the patriot act, now this...

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

What a stupid comment.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Tom
My sister-in-law's sister lost the use of the right side of her body, leg, arm, everything, just last month, thanks to a drunk driver. As an example of what her life is now like, she has to have assistance to get into and out of the bathroom.

I don't drink; would I be willing to put up with the aggravation of a device that tested my alcohol level to start my car, so that some person somewhere wouldn't suffer the same fate ? Yes, I think I would.

Those who would give up 'Essential Liberty', to purchase a little 'Temporary Safety', deserve neither Liberty nor Safety ...this comes from Ben Franklin...

People want safety so much now...it's scary. They will vote for things that are so infringing on basic rights it's not funny. They don't think about situations they may end up in...just living for the moment.

I drink, a lot. I don't drive while doing it, even if it means camping out all night or paying for a cab.

There is a lot out there if you just live, she may always need assistance for some things. However, she can probably excel at a lot if she challenges herself. Most can't make it through a good day without assistance. It's unfortunate she became a victim, but each day a lot of us are...it's life.

Fortunately her situation is extremely rare. I hope she makes it back to 'today' and continues living.

Å

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Tizyler

Originally posted by: Amused
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

What a stupid comment.

missed your comment...care to explain about DUI law and how it's constitutional?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
I personally beleive that all those who drink are pieces of garbage to varying degrees. Gosh I hate alcohol drinking pieces of ******!! (A close friend of mine burned to death unconsious in his car after being hit by a drunk driver, almost a decade ago)

But I will limit that prejudice in answering this. I doubt this will ever fly because of so many ofthe issues discussed above. If it does, those convicted of drunk driving in the past should pay for all of this. But I also beleive that an ex post facto law is unconstitutional, so that can't happen. Why not just create harsher punishments. If someone is convicted of drunk driving, they lose their lisence, for a decade. I can gauarentee that will make a good impact.

Unfortuatly things today are in a down turn when it comes to this issue. A fellow student likes to brag about his drunk driving. He does it frequently. He has gotten pulled over for it, but the fact is that most cops hate writting tickets for DUIs. It is usually 3 hours of paper work for them, so I have been told by an officer. So there evening of traffic patrol is over, and they have to sit in the station writing make the write up, not fun. There is a lot more that can be done to help curb drunk drivers.

If you are so perked up on this, perhaps research it. See how much profit is seen and how much politics are pushed through on DUI bills. Also do you understand how many people are arrested everyday with a DUI blowing the .08 and would never kill or even harm a hair on the public?